Armed Forces Pest Management BoardArmed Forces Pest Management BoardNew Technologies in

Decontaminating Vehicles

Dr. Harold E. BalbachDr. Harold E. Balbach

U.S. Army ERDC-CERL, Champaign, ILU.S. Army ERDC-CERL, Champaign, IL

Dr. Lisa Rew, Dr. Lisa Rew, Tyler Brummer and Fred PollnacTyler Brummer and Fred Pollnac

Montana State University, Bozeman, MTMontana State University, Bozeman, MT

What did we do?What did we do?What was the focus of these studies?What was the focus of these studies?

Two major areas of inquiryTwo major areas of inquiry1.1. Just how many seeds (and other propagules) Just how many seeds (and other propagules)

can a vehicle carry? can a vehicle carry? 1.1. i.e., what is the magnitude of the risk?i.e., what is the magnitude of the risk?

2.2. How well can we clean vehicles with existing How well can we clean vehicles with existing technology?technology?

Today, let’s talk about them in reverse Today, let’s talk about them in reverse orderorder

What did we do?What did we do?What was the focus of these studies?What was the focus of these studies?

Two major areas of inquiryTwo major areas of inquiry1.1. How well can we clean vehicles with existing How well can we clean vehicles with existing

technology?technology?

2.2. Just how many seeds (and other propagules) Just how many seeds (and other propagules) can a vehicle carry?can a vehicle carry?

• i.e., what is the magnitude of the risk?i.e., what is the magnitude of the risk?

Ends up being more about Ends up being more about NEEDNEED for new technology for new technology rather than describing itrather than describing it

But some of this But some of this will will be new to many be new to many peoplepeople

CONUS vs. OCONUS?CONUS vs. OCONUS? It is clear that the greatest It is clear that the greatest

concerns are for “foreign” concerns are for “foreign” invadersinvaders Especially those “new” Especially those “new”

to the U.S.to the U.S. These studies concentrate These studies concentrate

on issues related to the on issues related to the spread on invasives we spread on invasives we already have within the already have within the countrycountry

The Russian thistle (The Russian thistle (Salsola Salsola tragustragus), also known as “Tumble ), also known as “Tumble Weed” is common throughout the Weed” is common throughout the United States-having invaded United States-having invaded about 100 million acres. about 100 million acres.

Presidential Executive Order 13112Presidential Executive Order 13112(February 3rd, 1999)(February 3rd, 1999)

Recognizes invasion by non-indigenous species (plants & animals) is a global-scale problem, threatening the ecological integrity of native communities and ecosystems nationwide.

Sec. 2. Federal Agency Duties.

(i) prevent the introduction of invasive species;

(ii) detect and respond rapidly to and control populations of such species in

a cost- effective and environmentally sound manner;

(iii) monitor invasive species populations accurately and reliably;

Military Dispersal of InvasivesMilitary Dispersal of InvasivesWhat is the risk here?What is the risk here?

Military-facilitated dispersal is a primary concern because invasive species or their reproductive structures can be disseminated across large areas by vehicles or other equipment, or on clothing.

This is especially likely during military training exercises where equipment and personnel are moved across large geographical areas in short periods of time.

Many exercise participants or war-fighters are unaware of the potential troublesome conditions that can arise if organisms are transported to continental United States (CONUS) locations.

OCONUS Background IssuesOCONUS Background Issues Forces participating in the

exercise Tandem Thrust were prohibited from entering Australia until a phyto-sanitation certificate could be obtained indicating the ship was free of gypsy moth.

In October-November 1999 snails were discovered on equipment being transported to North Carolina on contract ships Motor Vessel Steven L. Bennett and Motor Vessel Austral Rainbow, respectively.

Snails attached to vehicle

Comparative size of snail

DoD First Response to EO 13112 DoD First Response to EO 13112 A focus on OCONUS InvasivesA focus on OCONUS Invasives

After the first Gulf War, the USDA and DoD had several confrontations related to the need to clean vehicles before they returned CONUS

In response to the Executive Order, the Legacy Resource Mmgt Program funded, and ERDC developed, a general overview of the current process that exists to clean, inspect, and regulate the movement of invasive species through ports of embarkation and debarkation.

Stryker unloading at Camp Arifjan prior to cleaning and shipment through the port.

Other OCONUS IssuesOther OCONUS Issues Some military protocols and

instructional videos for cleaning and transportation of equipment focus on materiel that is obsolete or not currently in the inventory.

The significant monetary and environmental impact that invasive species are having around the world has focused the responses of many agencies to this problem. Due to these costs, the pathways that allow new invasive species to enter the country are becoming increasingly scrutinized.

DoD retrograde NOT the only area being tightened

OCONUS sites may rely on obsolete cleaning methods

Aircraft prepared at Camp Doha for shipment through the port.

Some problems with cleaning Some problems with cleaning prior to retrograde shipmentprior to retrograde shipment

Time consumingTime consuming May require hours or days per May require hours or days per

vehiclevehicle Cleaning a unit’s equipment may Cleaning a unit’s equipment may

take weekstake weeks Labor intensiveLabor intensive

May require from 3 or 4 to 40+ May require from 3 or 4 to 40+ person hours per vehicleperson hours per vehicle

Water consumingWater consuming May use hundreds of gallons per May use hundreds of gallons per

vehiclevehicle Recycling not commonly Recycling not commonly

practicedpracticed Health concernsHealth concerns

Non-potable water usedNon-potable water used May be gray water or untreated May be gray water or untreated

effluenteffluent

Cleaning a Stryker

Undercarriage Inspection

Naval Surface Warfare Center:Rapid Deployment Wash Facility

One example of new technology

Developed under contract from the NSWC for Military and Homeland Defense deployments.

The system was designed to meet the ISO Military logistics requirements.

Designed for automated and manual cleaning and decontamination of vehicles and equipment.

Could be set up in response to emergency situations anywhere in the world within a few hours notice.

Prototype built and excessed No follow-up procurementNo follow-up procurement

The Army’s Conventional Tank BathThe Army’s Conventional Tank Bath(Central Vehicle Washing Facility)(Central Vehicle Washing Facility)

Invasive species were not one of the design criteriaInvasive species were not one of the design criteria

Is the CVWF Adequate?Is the CVWF Adequate?(To prevent spread of invasives)(To prevent spread of invasives)

Not all locations have a tank bathNot all locations have a tank bath Mostly deployed on larger CONUS postsMostly deployed on larger CONUS posts Reserve and State-operated locations may Reserve and State-operated locations may

not have onenot have one Usually located near motor pool, may not Usually located near motor pool, may not

be useful for vehicles moving within postbe useful for vehicles moving within post Designed to remove soil (surrogate for Designed to remove soil (surrogate for

seeds) seeds) Most wash racks lack containmentMost wash racks lack containment Procedures do not address aquaticsProcedures do not address aquatics

Alternatives in Military Washing EquipmentAlternatives in Military Washing Equipment

The aftermath of the World Trade Center terrorist attack created environmental cross-contamination and track-out problems similar to those faced today by most landfills, mines and quarries.

InterClean designed and built the only robotic tank wash system for Ft. Riley in 1996. The system the most sophisticated single vehicular wash installation ever designed and installed. 

All of these systems are costly and therefore not widely used. They are NOT what we are talking about when we talk about Vehicle Washing.

These systems do clean vehicles, but don’t really solve the problem of the spread of invasive species from place to place within the United States.

Is there a risk from invasive species Is there a risk from invasive species within the U.S.?within the U.S.?

Remember that Executive Order 13112 is NOT restricted to Remember that Executive Order 13112 is NOT restricted to risks from outside the country.risks from outside the country.

Example: Example: The US Forest Service has already recognized The US Forest Service has already recognized

invasive species as a potential risk and developed invasive species as a potential risk and developed a means to respond to it.a means to respond to it.

USFS has instituted rules requiring that vehicles USFS has instituted rules requiring that vehicles entering and leaving forest fire management areas entering and leaving forest fire management areas are to be washed to help minimize such transfer are to be washed to help minimize such transfer from one National Forest to another.from one National Forest to another.

USFS is using our studies to prepare system USFS is using our studies to prepare system specifications for contracted cleaning of vehicles specifications for contracted cleaning of vehicles moving from one area to another.moving from one area to another.

Forest Service Response to Forest Service Response to Executive OrderExecutive Order

Almost every major forest fire attack plan includes requirement that all vehicles be washed going in and out of fire zone USFS contracts for relocatable

wash systems similar to this

Our CONUS StudyOur CONUS Study““Evaluating the Potential for Vehicle Transport Evaluating the Potential for Vehicle Transport

of Propagules of Invasive Species”of Propagules of Invasive Species”(Interagency SERDP project - Montana State University PI)(Interagency SERDP project - Montana State University PI)

ERDC-CERL San Dimas Lab CDF AcademyBozeman, MT

Project Objectives #1Project Objectives #1 Acquire data on soil adhering to vehicles driven off Acquire data on soil adhering to vehicles driven off

road, and to evaluate several relocatable road, and to evaluate several relocatable commercial vehicle cleaning systems for:commercial vehicle cleaning systems for: Cleaning system EfficacyCleaning system Efficacy – – amount of debris removed from amount of debris removed from

the vehicles and equipment over a certain time period, compared to the vehicles and equipment over a certain time period, compared to total amount of debris that could be removed from them.total amount of debris that could be removed from them.

Waste ContainmentWaste Containment – – contract system’s ability to contain the contract system’s ability to contain the waste from the cleaning systemwaste from the cleaning system

Seed Viability EffectsSeed Viability Effects – – number of viable seeds remaining in number of viable seeds remaining in the system waste compared to the known quantity of seed each the system waste compared to the known quantity of seed each system processed.system processed.

Do the findings show the potential need to require Do the findings show the potential need to require vehicle cleaning when moving between different vehicle cleaning when moving between different CONUS installations?CONUS installations?

Underlying DoD-relevant QuestionUnderlying DoD-relevant Question

Do they meet their design purposes?Do they meet their design purposes?1.1. Remove soil from equipment?Remove soil from equipment?

2.2. Reduce risk of seed transport?Reduce risk of seed transport? Do different washing systems differ in Do different washing systems differ in

performance?performance?

Evaluated Performance of 5 Evaluated Performance of 5 Commercial Wash UnitsCommercial Wash Units

ConsiderationsConsiderations Will the wash unit accommodate your Will the wash unit accommodate your

goals?goals? Cleaning efficacyCleaning efficacy Water UseWater Use CostCost Seed Containment (most relevant for us)Seed Containment (most relevant for us)

Five units were comparedFive units were compared Similar basic designSimilar basic design

Copyright 2006, Spika Welding & Mfg Inc

1. Wash water effluent is pumped from reclaim mat to staging cell

2. Staged effluent is pumped through Hydrocyclone separation

3. “Underflow” heavy solids are separated and deposited in holding cell

5. After settling, water is pumped through 2 stage filtration system, capturing all seeds and smaller particulates 25 microns in

size and larger

6. Processed water is returned to holding cell for reuse

(WB 510G Weed Wash Unit)

4. “Overflow” stream is deposited in settling cell

Basic Operation of a Wash UnitGraphic prepared by SK based on their unit

Other systems similar in design, but differ in some details

Test Location – 2007 StudyTest Location – 2007 Study

SDTDC and CERL formed a working partnership with Cal Fire, whose cooperation permitted researchers to stake out a test course, a travel route, and a solid, paved

cleaning location. All testing took place at Cal Fire Training Center in Ione, CA.

SiteSite

Each system was tested over a separate 5-day Each system was tested over a separate 5-day period between 18 June and 27 July 2007. period between 18 June and 27 July 2007.

The test course was laid out in a cleared, open, level The test course was laid out in a cleared, open, level field with little or no vegetation above the surface.field with little or no vegetation above the surface.

The area had been graded recently, so the surface The area had been graded recently, so the surface was fairly smooth. The soil in the test area is a was fairly smooth. The soil in the test area is a Honcut silt loam described by the Natural Resources Honcut silt loam described by the Natural Resources Conservation Service as “very deep, well drained Conservation Service as “very deep, well drained soils that formed in moderately coarse textured soils that formed in moderately coarse textured alluvium from basic igneous and granite rocks.” alluvium from basic igneous and granite rocks.”

Vehicles UsedVehicles Used

Wildland (Class 3) Fire Engines (two were used for test cycles)

Light 4x4 vehicles (two pickup trucks and 1 sport utility vehicle [SUV])

Bulldozer (one Cat D6R high track bulldozer).

In this USFS-focused phase of the study, three types of vehicles were used:

ProcedureProcedure Vehicles were cleaned meticulously prior to driving at set speed Vehicles were cleaned meticulously prior to driving at set speed

around the predefined course and then washed by wash unit.around the predefined course and then washed by wash unit.

Wheeled vehicles were driven 15m through a fabricated mud Wheeled vehicles were driven 15m through a fabricated mud bog and then 2.75 times around the figure-8 course before bog and then 2.75 times around the figure-8 course before returning them to the washing area on the helipad. Total returning them to the washing area on the helipad. Total distance: 1720m (1.07 miles)distance: 1720m (1.07 miles)

At the end of the process the vehicles were stripped down and At the end of the process the vehicles were stripped down and cleaned again to quantify the amount of debris missed by cleaned again to quantify the amount of debris missed by commercial wash units. commercial wash units.

To quantify how much seed was lost in the wash and filtering To quantify how much seed was lost in the wash and filtering system process, a known amount of soil and seed were placed system process, a known amount of soil and seed were placed in a water trough and taken into the wash unit’s filtering system. in a water trough and taken into the wash unit’s filtering system. Samples were left over-night and filtered according the Samples were left over-night and filtered according the individual unit’s protocol. Waste samples were collected and individual unit’s protocol. Waste samples were collected and germination was later recorded at MSU. germination was later recorded at MSU.

Predefined course is preparedPredefined course is prepared

Vehicle drives the course at a set speedVehicle drives the course at a set speed

Vehicle is washed by wash unit for 5 minutesVehicle is washed by wash unit for 5 minutes

Quantify how much soil was removed by the wash contractor

Vehicles were stripped down and cleaned againVehicles were stripped down and cleaned again

Quantified the amount of debris missed by commercial wash unitsQuantified the amount of debris missed by commercial wash units

Waste samples were collected and germination was recorded at MSU

Soil Removal – by contractorSoil Removal – by contractorTotal mass removed for 18 replicationsTotal mass removed for 18 replications

As the test progressed, the vehicles picked up more debris from same As the test progressed, the vehicles picked up more debris from same course, apparently related to increases in the amount of water applied to course, apparently related to increases in the amount of water applied to the course for dust abatement. Therefore, the later contractors had a much the course for dust abatement. Therefore, the later contractors had a much larger mass of debris to remove, in some cases more than 4 time as much.larger mass of debris to remove, in some cases more than 4 time as much.

Soil Removal – by vehicle typeSoil Removal – by vehicle type

Proportion of total soil recovered

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

4 x 4 & SUV Class 3 Fire Engines Dozer

Pro

po

rtio

n

Unit 1Unit 2Unit 3Unit 4Unit 5

• Proportion of soil removed by vehicle type, for five commercial wash units• No significant differences within a vehicle type • Smaller vehicles were more difficult to clean

Cleaning EfficacyCleaning Efficacy

The total (100%) was the amount contractors removed plus that which the The total (100%) was the amount contractors removed plus that which the research crew removed in the post wash.research crew removed in the post wash.

Even the most effective system could not remove more than 88% of Even the most effective system could not remove more than 88% of debris from the wheeled vehicles, and the poorer ones only 65%.debris from the wheeled vehicles, and the poorer ones only 65%.

If more time had been allowed, the results would likely have been better; If more time had been allowed, the results would likely have been better; however it was decided to standardize vehicle washes at 5 minutes each however it was decided to standardize vehicle washes at 5 minutes each to reflect fire-incident conditions in the field.to reflect fire-incident conditions in the field.

This is also approximately the time allocated per vehicle by the Army in its This is also approximately the time allocated per vehicle by the Army in its washing facilitieswashing facilities

Seed ViabilitySeed Viability

Seed viability was tested before the experiment (column 2)Seed viability was tested before the experiment (column 2) Soil and seed water retained at the end of the process was placed in cold storage Soil and seed water retained at the end of the process was placed in cold storage

while transporting the samples from California to the greenhouse, causing a loss of while transporting the samples from California to the greenhouse, causing a loss of seed viability which was quantified (column 3)seed viability which was quantified (column 3)

The number of seedlings of each species germinating from samples that had passed The number of seedlings of each species germinating from samples that had passed through wash units was recorded and corrected for seed viability and loss due to through wash units was recorded and corrected for seed viability and loss due to transport.transport.

The percent viability lost for each species (column 4) represents the percent of viable The percent viability lost for each species (column 4) represents the percent of viable seed of each species lost as a direct result of passing through the wash units.seed of each species lost as a direct result of passing through the wash units.

Are seeds lost in the wash?Are seeds lost in the wash?

• Survival varies greatly by species • Roughly 80% of seeds are lost when passed through the unit• These values were used in correcting seed transport estimates

Does seed survival vary by wash unit?Does seed survival vary by wash unit?% Seed Kill by Wash Unit

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

AC ACME BRC LRH SK

Wash Unit

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f L

ive

See

ds

Kil

led

How clean is clean?How clean is clean?(Does it help to wash more than once?)(Does it help to wash more than once?)

Percent material removed from a contaminated truck during five successive three minute washes, replicated six times. ANOVA indicates that each successive wash removes significantly less material than the previous wash, with the exception of washes 4 and 5 which do not differ in terms of percent material removed.

2007 Study

2008 Study Expanded from 2007.

Test 1: Applied known quantities of soil and known number of seeds to undercarriage of a 1 ton truck. Truck was then driven for 1, 2, 5 or 10 miles on unpaved roads at OTA. Was then washed and soil and seeds bagged for analysis. 5 replicates for each distance.

Test 2: Applied soil and seed mix as in #1. Allowed to dry. Then truck was washed 1, 2, 4, or 10 times without being driven off the wash pad.

New “How Clean is Clean” StudiesNew “How Clean is Clean” Studies6-9 June 2008 @ Orchard TA, Idaho6-9 June 2008 @ Orchard TA, Idaho

Loading the mud cannon

Chassis after being mud-loadedChassis after being mud-loaded

Entering wash pad

Recovering debris and seeds

How clean is clean?How clean is clean?Is once through good enough?Is once through good enough?

Percent Soil Removed for Different Wash Times

1.5 3 6Wash Time (minutes)

Pe

rce

nt

Re

mo

ved

Sort of…one short wash not adequate; doubling it helps; doubling again adds more effect

39

Can we get cleaner than clean?

Twice IS better than once; successive washes DO remove more, but a diminishing return as you continue

Results and Conclusions: Obj 1 Results and Conclusions: Obj 1 The best systems removed from 80-90% of soil from The best systems removed from 80-90% of soil from

the vehicles.the vehicles. Some, though, achieved < 70% soil removalSome, though, achieved < 70% soil removal HOWEVER, these were all systems believed to be HOWEVER, these were all systems believed to be

the best of their types, with experienced operatorsthe best of their types, with experienced operators Re-washing does benefit to a pointRe-washing does benefit to a point Six-minute wash may be optimum for efficiency Six-minute wash may be optimum for efficiency USFS USFS hashas no performance specs, so many of the no performance specs, so many of the

systems actually being used by the USFS likely do systems actually being used by the USFS likely do not achieve this level of soil removal.not achieve this level of soil removal.

This means large amounts of soil are routinely This means large amounts of soil are routinely NOTNOT removed during cleaning at forest fire sites.removed during cleaning at forest fire sites.

What does this mean?What does this mean? Do the findings show the potential value of Do the findings show the potential value of

enforcing vehicle cleaning when moving among enforcing vehicle cleaning when moving among different CONUS installationsdifferent CONUS installations

There ARE systems available that could be used to remove There ARE systems available that could be used to remove soil and other debris from vehicles moved among different soil and other debris from vehicles moved among different training areastraining areas

BUT efficacy is much less than 100%;BUT efficacy is much less than 100%; The process would reduce the risk of seed transport, but The process would reduce the risk of seed transport, but

would not eliminate itwould not eliminate it

Is this level of removal a great enough benefit to Is this level of removal a great enough benefit to require inter- (or intra-) installation cleaning require inter- (or intra-) installation cleaning procedures?procedures?

Objective 2 Objective 2 Vehicles as Vectors of Seed DispersalVehicles as Vectors of Seed Dispersal

Seed transport on different types of vehiclesSeed transport on different types of vehicles

We all know it can and does take place, but how MUCH is actually transported?

We all know it can and does take place, but how MUCH is actually transported?

This is the measure of riskThis is the measure of risk

Previous StudiesPrevious Studies Association between non native plants and Association between non native plants and

roadsroads (Timmins and Williams, 1992; Tyser and Worley, 1992; (Timmins and Williams, 1992; Tyser and Worley, 1992; Parendes and Jones, 2000; Gelbard and Belnap, 2003)Parendes and Jones, 2000; Gelbard and Belnap, 2003)

Seeds found on automobiles Seeds found on automobiles (Schmidt, 1989; Hodkinson (Schmidt, 1989; Hodkinson and Thompson, 1997; Zwaenepoel and Thompson, 1997; Zwaenepoel et alet al, 2005), 2005)

Seeds dispersed by vehicles Seeds dispersed by vehicles (Von der lippe and (Von der lippe and Kowarik, 2007)Kowarik, 2007)

What information are we missing?What information are we missing? Control measuresControl measures Dispersal potential as related to vehicle typeDispersal potential as related to vehicle type Seeds transported/distanceSeeds transported/distance Seasonal differencesSeasonal differences

Back to Basics:Back to Basics:How do seeds move in the environment?How do seeds move in the environment?

• Wind• Gravity• Natural events• Animals• The human animal

Seed Transport: Military VehiclesSeed Transport: Military Vehicles

Goal: Evaluate how vehicle type may Goal: Evaluate how vehicle type may influence the potential to transport seedsinfluence the potential to transport seeds

4 Vehicles types evaluated4 Vehicles types evaluated Tracked, 10-wheeled, 8-wheeled, HummersTracked, 10-wheeled, 8-wheeled, Hummers

Real-time GPS data collected while Real-time GPS data collected while vehicles carried out exercisesvehicles carried out exercises

Road conditions were dryRoad conditions were dry Two locations – MT in 2007, ID in 2008Two locations – MT in 2007, ID in 2008

Limestone Hills Training Area, MT - 2007

2007 study - Limestone Hills, MT

Number of seeds collected per km driven (Corrected for est. 50% of seed viability lost)

  Humvees Trucks ATVExercise 1 2.6 1.3 1.0Exercise 2 0.3 0.5 1.4

Percentage of km driven on unpaved roads  Humvees Trucks ATVExercise 1 95 100 98Exercise 2 57 17 100

Results: Quantify the number of propagules transported on different types of military vehicles

Limestone Hills, MT, 2007 Field Study

• ca. 1,000 viable seeds recovered • 53 species detected• Dominant species: Verbena bracteata (big bract verbena), Eragrostis pilosa (Indian lovegrass), Kochia scoporia, (Kochia), Agropyron trachycaulum (slender wheatgrass) and Hordeum jubatum (foxtail barley).

• Germination and growth tostage to identify took 18 months• Counts finalized Dec 2008

Results: Limestone Hills 2007Results: Limestone Hills 2007

2008 Research Program2008 Research Program

Instrumented a combined arms scout platoon from the Instrumented a combined arms scout platoon from the 163163rdrd Brigade, Montana ARNG Brigade, Montana ARNG

Recorded samples of each vehicle type during a week-Recorded samples of each vehicle type during a week-long FTX at Orchard Training Area, Boise, IDlong FTX at Orchard Training Area, Boise, ID

Cleaned vehicles before and after participating in the Cleaned vehicles before and after participating in the exerciseexercise

Saved debris removed, and quantified seed recovered Saved debris removed, and quantified seed recovered for species and germinabilityfor species and germinability

Mapped terrain where vehicles actually operated as Mapped terrain where vehicles actually operated as recorded by GPS, and identified vegetation typesrecorded by GPS, and identified vegetation types

Related seed removal to duration and distance moved in Related seed removal to duration and distance moved in each vegetation type to develop risk ratings.each vegetation type to develop risk ratings.

Orchard Training Area, ID - 2008Orchard Training Area, ID - 2008

2008 Field Studies

Scout platoon vehicles in line to be washed post-exercise

Orchard TA, Idaho

10 June 2008

2008 Field Studies2008 Field Studies

Vehicles being cleaned after an FTX at Orchard TA, Idaho. June 10, 2008

Pre-wash/Post-washPre-wash/Post-wash

Results: Orchard TA 2008

SummarySummary

Military vehicles do pick up a significant Military vehicles do pick up a significant number of seeds, even in dry conditions, and number of seeds, even in dry conditions, and early in the growing seasonearly in the growing season

Amount of seed transported may depend on Amount of seed transported may depend on vehicle type and road surfacevehicle type and road surface

Other questions:Other questions: Is there a maximum seed load vehicles transport?Is there a maximum seed load vehicles transport?

• Limestone hills 09 – Limestone hills 09 – data being analyzeddata being analyzed Does seed load increase with wet road surface?Does seed load increase with wet road surface?

• Controlled seed loss/gain experiment – Controlled seed loss/gain experiment – planned for 2010planned for 2010

Another Off-road Vehicle Type: ATVAnother Off-road Vehicle Type: ATV

Goal: Evaluate how season and terrain may Goal: Evaluate how season and terrain may influence the potential of ATVs to transport influence the potential of ATVs to transport seedsseeds

Conducted in Gallatin National Forest Conducted in Gallatin National Forest Real-time GPS data collected while ATVs Real-time GPS data collected while ATVs

were operatedwere operated Trials conducted off-trail and on-trail, late Trials conducted off-trail and on-trail, late

spring and fall of 2008spring and fall of 2008

Off Trail (Indian Ridge Meadow)Off Trail (Indian Ridge Meadow)

On Trail (Mica Creek)On Trail (Mica Creek)

ATV

ATV

ATV

8 loops, 2 miles each, GPS tracked

Collect seed

Repeat 3x for 3 replicates

Methods(Seed Collection)

Repeat again in the fall

on trail/ off trail

Soil material pottedSoil material potted Plants counted and Plants counted and

identifiedidentified ANDAND

Seed material collected Seed material collected from matfrom mat

Weighed, subsampled, Weighed, subsampled, seeds identified and seeds identified and total seed numbers total seed numbers estimatedestimated

ResultsResults

Season Treat Total Native Exotic Noxious

spring off 80,911 907 79,508 18

spring on 1,018 69 789 0

fall off 266,720 21,857 158,327 753

fall on 18,891 1,420 14,749 4

Average number of seeds collected per rep (48 miles of ATV travel)

SummarySummary

ATVs are capable of picking up large amounts of ATVs are capable of picking up large amounts of seedseed

More seed picked up off-trail than on-trailMore seed picked up off-trail than on-trail More seed picked up in fall season that late More seed picked up in fall season that late

spring/early summerspring/early summer

**Our off trail area was **Our off trail area was veryvery rich in seed material rich in seed material Other Questions:Other Questions:

How far are seeds transported?How far are seeds transported? What about horses, mtn. bikes, people, and animals?What about horses, mtn. bikes, people, and animals?

Overall ConclusionsOverall Conclusions Significant CONUS risks existSignificant CONUS risks exist Wash units do remove soil and plant materialWash units do remove soil and plant material

Seed disposal practices need more careSeed disposal practices need more care

Not clear how good BMPs really areNot clear how good BMPs really are Vehicle type plays a role in the amount of seed movedVehicle type plays a role in the amount of seed moved

Tracked vehicles have greater potentialTracked vehicles have greater potential Any off-road vehicle has high riskAny off-road vehicle has high risk

Season has a big effect on seed movementSeason has a big effect on seed movement There are high-risk seasonsThere are high-risk seasons

Other studies could assist in quantificationOther studies could assist in quantification

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

DoD Sustainable Environment & Research DoD Sustainable Environment & Research Development Program (SERDP) SI-1545Development Program (SERDP) SI-1545

Montana Noxious Weed Trust Fund Grant Montana Noxious Weed Trust Fund Grant number 2008-005number 2008-005

Thank You!Thank You!

Questions?Questions?